Indeed, I have forgotten to add the action. There will be a new action «
—delete-offsets ». Sorry!
*Proposed API*
kafka-consumer-groups.sh --bootstrap-server <bootstrap server>
—delete-offsets --group <group id> --topic <topic-name>:<partition numbers>
ex: --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --group my-group --topic
topic1 --topic topic2:0,1,2
When partitions is not provided, all partitions are used.
Best,
David
Le mer. 18 sept. 2019 à 20:09, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, at 09:07, David Jacot wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We haven't included the changes in the command line tool to support the
> new
> > API. Therefore,
> > I would like to amend the current KIP to cover the changes in the
> > `kafka-consumer-groups`
> > command line tool. The change is rather small and it does not need to add
> > any new arguments
> > to the command line tool. so it doesn't make sense to create a new KIP
> for
> > it.
> >
> > *Proposed API*
> > kafka-consumer-groups.sh --bootstrap-server <bootstrap server> --group
> > <group id> --topic <topic-name>:<partition numbers>
> > ex: --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --group my-group --topic topic1
> > --topic topic2:0,1,2
> >
> > When partitions not provided, all partitions are used.
>
> Hmm. I think I'm missing something here. If you try the command you
> specified, you get:
>
> > Command must include exactly one action: --list, --describe, --delete,
> --reset-offsets
>
> Did you mean to add a new action here that was offsets-related?
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:42 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 04:45, David Jacot wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to do another modification to the proposal. In the
> proposal,
> > > > the OffsetDeleteResponse
> > > > doesn't have a top level error field so I would like to add one. Many
> > > > errors concern the whole
> > > > group (e.g. GROUP_ID_NOT_FOUND) so it would be great to have a way to
> > > > communicate them
> > > > back to the client without having to set such errors for all the
> > > requested
> > > > partitions. It makes the
> > > > error handling on the client easier and cleaner.
> > > >
> > > > *Proposed API with the ErrorCode:*
> > > > {
> > > > "apiKey": 47,
> > > > "type": "response",
> > > > "name": "OffsetDeleteResponse",
> > > > "validVersions": "0",
> > > > "fields": [
> > > > { "name": "ErrorCode", "type": "int16", "versions": "0+",
> > > > "about": "The top-level error code, or 0 if there was no
> error." },
> > > > { "name": "ThrottleTimeMs", "type": "int32", "versions": "0+",
> > > > "ignorable": true,
> > > > "about": "The duration in milliseconds for which the request
> was
> > > > throttled due to a quota violation, or zero if the request did not
> > > violate
> > > > any quota." },
> > > > { "name": "Topics", "type": "[]OffsetDeleteResponseTopic",
> > > "versions":
> > > > "0+",
> > > > "about": "The responses for each topic.", "fields": [
> > > > { "name": "Name", "type": "string", "versions": "0+",
> "mapKey":
> > > > true,
> > > > "about": "The topic name." },
> > > > { "name": "Partitions", "type":
> > > "[]OffsetDeleteResponsePartition",
> > > > "versions": "0+",
> > > > "about": "The responses for each partition in the topic.",
> > > > "fields": [
> > > > { "name": "PartitionIndex", "type": "int32", "versions":
> > > "0+",
> > > > "mapKey": true,
> > > > "about": "The partition index." },
> > > > { "name": "ErrorCode", "type": "int16", "versions": "0+",
> > > > "about": "The error code, or 0 if there was no error."
> }
> > > > ]
> > > > }
> > > > ]
> > > > }
> > > > ]
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know if there are any concerns or objections
> regarding
> > > this
> > > > change before updating the KIP.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:24 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > While implementing the KIP, I have realized that a new error code
> and
> > > > > exception is required to notify the caller that offsets of a topic
> can
> > > not
> > > > > be deleted because the group is actively subscribed to the topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to know if there are any concerns with these changes
> > > before
> > > > > updating the KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > *Proposed API:*
> > > > > GROUP_SUBSCRIBED_TO_TOPIC(86, "The consumer group is actively
> > > subscribed
> > > > > to the topic", GroupSubscribedToTopicException::new);
> > > > >
> > > > > public class GroupSubscribedToTopicException extends ApiException {
> > > > > public GroupSubscribedToTopicException(String message) {
> > > > > super(message);
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:58 AM Mickael Maison <
> > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:53 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, at 11:47, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> > > > >> > > Hey Colin, I think deleting all offsets is equivalent to
> deleting
> > > the
> > > > >> > > group, which can be done with the `deleteConsumerGroups` api.
> I
> > > > >> debated
> > > > >> > > whether there should be a way to delete partitions for all
> > > > >> unsubscribed
> > > > >> > > topics, but I decided to start with a simple API.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That's a fair point-- deleting the group covers the main
> use-case
> > > for
> > > > >> deleting all offsets. So we might as well keep it simple for now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > cheers,
> > > > >> > Colin
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I'm going to close this vote. The final result is +3 with
> myself,
> > > > >> Guozhang,
> > > > >> > > and Colin voting.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -Jason
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:21 AM Colin McCabe <
> cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Is there ever a desire to delete all the offsets for a given
> > > group?
> > > > >> > > > Should the protocol and tools support this?
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > best,
> > > > >> > > > Colin
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, at 10:57, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > +1 (binding).
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thanks Jason!
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:18 AM Jason Gustafson <
> > > > >> ja...@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-496:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-496%3A+Administrative+API+to+delete+consumer+offsets
> > > > >> > > > > > .
> > > > >> > > > > > +1
> > > > >> > > > > > from me of course.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > -Jason
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
